S.S.Sandhawalia, J.

1. Would the situs of employment of the workman determine the locus for the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain a dispute arising from the termination of his services under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is the significant question necessitating this reference to the Full Bench. Equally at issue is the correctness of the ratio in Bihar State Sales Representative V/s. Shri Krishan Parshad C.W.J.C. No. 993 of 1969 decided on 24th October, 1972.

2. Manifestly the issue aforesaid is a pretend legal one and consequently the matrix of facts giving rise thereto may be noticed with relative brevity: M/s A.K. Distributors Private Ltd., (respondent No. 3) is the sole Distributor in Western India for the medicines of Mac Laboratories having its Head Office at Calcutta. Sri P.K. Pal, writ petitioner, was appointed as a Medical-cumsales Representative of the aforesaid respondent with effect from 6th July, 1962-vide appointment letter (Annexure 1). By a subsequent communication dated 18th December, 1968, the respondent Company instructed the Writ petitioner Sri P.K. Pal to work at Patna proper only and not to visit any interior stations within the State of Bihar. It would appear that certain disputes with regard to both the payment and the rate of commission arose between the employer Company and the writ petitioner. By a letter dated 9th January, 1969, the respondent employer charge-sheeted Sri P.K. Pal Thereafter his services were terminated on 1st March, 1969-vide Annexure 5 Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner raised an industrial dispute is the State of Bihar in which the conciliation proceedings having failed, the respondent State referred the following matters for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal:

(1) Whether the termination of services of Sri Paritosh Kumar Pal is proper and justified? If not, is he entitled to reinstatement or any other relief?

(2) Whether the management was justified in not paying Sri Pal commission on sales for the year 1968-69? If not, to what relief and/or compensation is Sri Pal entitled?

3. Before the Industrial Tribunal, two preliminary points were taken by the respondent management on the question of the maintainability of the reference itself. The Tribunal thought it desirable and, specially so in view of the fact that the contestants had expressly agreed to the proposal that these points, which involved the question of the very jurisdiction of the Tribunal should be decided first and directed the parties to lead evidence, inter alia, on the following point:

(a) Whether the reference by the Government is incompetent inasmuch as the management is carrying on its business at and from Calcutta and the establishment is at Calcutta?

The parties led evidence on the point aforesaid and therefrom the Tribunal concluded as under:

In the present case there is no separate establishment in Bihar. The only establishment of Messrs A.K. Distributors is at Calcutta from where the company is carrying on its business in the States of Bihar, Bengal, Assam and Orissa. Though the concerned workman was working in Bihar and his services were terminated but the concerned workman Shri Pal was carrying on business of Messrs AK. Distributors under direction and supervision of the Calcutta Office of Messrs. A.K. Distributors Private Limited.

On the aforesaid premises and after referring to case law and in particular following the then somewhat recent Division Bench judgment in Bihar State Sales Representative Unions case (supra), the Tribunal concluded that the Bihar State Government was not the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , to make the reference and the sam being invalid in law, the Tribunal itself had no jurisdiction to decide the industrial dispute referred to it. Inevitably, the reference was thus declined. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition was presented. When the matter came up before the Div